The Top Paid Government Employees

Page 2 of 4<1234>
October 25th, 2021 at 6:39:21 AM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: SOOPOO
This is a simple one. You identify an employee (Head Coach) that you want for your school (or pro team) and you offer him a contract that you hope he will find acceptable and sign. I can’t think of anything less relevant than what the Anesthesiology Professor at Alabama’s medical school makes. If Alabama somehow was able to void Nick Saban’s contract, I’d surmise another college would be happy to pay him. It’s called a free market.


I would agree if we are comparing private schools to private teams (both of which I could care less about), but when its a public school its a problem, which I never realized how shocking of a problem it is until I saw the top government salaries in the Nation are all sports related positions (by a wide margin no other government employee at any level even comes close).
October 25th, 2021 at 6:52:25 AM permalink
SOOPOO
Member since: Feb 19, 2014
Threads: 22
Posts: 4157
Quote: Gandler
I would agree if we are comparing private schools to private teams (both of which I could care less about), but when its a public school its a problem, which I never realized how shocking of a problem it is until I saw the top government salaries in the Nation are all sports related positions (by a wide margin no other government employee at any level even comes close).


I understand your point. Your solution would result in public universities being unable to compete for the top and even middle level coaches. Whoever actually makes these decisions does not care about what you think. Try running as a politician in Alabama on the platform of preventing the football team from hiring top coaches.
October 25th, 2021 at 7:13:18 AM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 51
Posts: 4944
my solution would be to open all college sports to all genders and then get rid of the sports that are not profitable.
At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a detrrent.
October 25th, 2021 at 7:31:04 AM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: SOOPOO
I understand your point. Your solution would result in public universities being unable to compete for the top and even middle level coaches. Whoever actually makes these decisions does not care about what you think. Try running as a politician in Alabama on the platform of preventing the football team from hiring top coaches.


Alabama never would happen because I have never lived there (and have no desire to). UGA is closer to home for me (and almost as egregious, its #2).
However, saying anything negative about UGA sports would be unpopular, its almost a religion. Going to any bar during Football season (now) its just nonstop talk about UGA (and game nights are even worse). My platform would be simple, players have to be students (even if recruited) for no pay, let coaches be students (Sports Management students who maybe have some kind of experience), who also coach for no pay, which if it ended up being successful would look brilliant (and if it didn't nothing would really matter).

For an example of colleges that do it right are Military Academies, they have highly paid coaches (making many times 4 Star Generals), but they are not government employees, they are private employees hired by the league and paid by a pool of donor and ticket revenue funds. If the coaches were Federal Employees people would probably feel differently. But, on a State level apparently everyone accepts this.

The larger issue is how focused on sports at a college level people are. This should be least least interesting thing about universities. And, it creates the complete wrong incentives and mindset.
October 25th, 2021 at 7:31:52 AM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: DRich
my solution would be to open all college sports to all genders and then get rid of the sports that are not profitable.


I do agree with this. Sports need to become gender neutral.
October 26th, 2021 at 7:34:14 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Gandler

Oh don't get me wrong I support cutting all sports (at public universities and High schools for that matter).

But, I doubt a specific coach can have a massive influence on revenue.

But, I just will never buy that a coach should make more than professors. Especially by an insane margin (they are not just making slightly more).

Even in High Schools this is often the case (to a much smaller extent), because "coaches" are generally the Gym Teachers, so gym teachers generally end up being the top paid teacher because they get multiple salaries. (coaching multiple sports and their standard teacher salary which is the same for gym teachers as Chemistry Teachers). It places the priorities in the complete wrong place. And, yes I know (in most States) techically any teacher can apply to be a coach (but it usually goes to the Gym teacher).


If you believe in the possibility that some coaches are better than others (don't forget college coaches also have to recruit!) AND that people are going to be more inclined to watch consistently winning teams than any other type of team, then you must conclude that a coach could have a massive influence on revenue.

I don't know what you're supporting with saying coaches shouldn't make more than professors. I think it might be more difficult to point to a professor and say, "Oh, this specific professor is responsible for x amount in revenues."

Beyond that, how many chemistry professors are there? There aren't too many coaches at Saban's level in the college game.

Yeah, they get paid for coaching, but are not always physical education teachers. I don't even know where you get the idea that they, "Are generally," the gym teachers...as that's not been my experience and I've never taken a deep dive into it.

I would say that physical education teachers are generally coaches, but not that coaches are generally physical education teachers. You wouldn't have enough physical education teachers to coach every sport in most schools, for one thing.

They also don't get paid any ridiculous amount. One of my best friends (a history teacher) is also the A.D. for the Middle School and the head football coach for one of the grades. While he may make something like an extra $3,000/annually...if you look at the combined hours he puts into the two tasks, it's not even minimum wage on the hour. They call it a, "Stipend," but I don't know if all schools call it that. I believe he also coaches one of the girl's basketball teams. I don't think he has anything to do with Spring sports, aside from being the A.D.

If you want to get rid of all sports, then go ahead and get rid of band, choir and art---while you're at it. Not only do those things have a non-zero cost, they also do not generally produce positive revenues---after you consider paying the teachers. Football coaches get a stipend while art, band and choir instructors are drawing full salary.

Talk about inclusivity and giving kids a wide variety of opportunities to find their calling. Sports teach discipline, commitment, effort and teamwork. I knew at least four kids---you couldn't have compelled them to maintain a C average...and their teachers would have certainly failed to do so...except they had to have that 2.0 with no F's to be on the football team.

You're also talking about 86'ing the only activity in (many or most) public schools that financially supports itself...which makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 26th, 2021 at 7:36:39 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Gandler
I would agree if we are comparing private schools to private teams (both of which I could care less about), but when its a public school its a problem, which I never realized how shocking of a problem it is until I saw the top government salaries in the Nation are all sports related positions (by a wide margin no other government employee at any level even comes close).


They pay him massively. They bring in massive revenues. Football operates profitably.

Maybe you could find a school where you might be able to identify a legitimate problem, but Alabama isn't it. Alabama football brings in positive revenues and supplements all of the other sports...probably supplements more than that.

It's baffling to me that someone would look at a profitable enterprise and choose that as the place to start making cuts.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 26th, 2021 at 7:37:08 AM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: Gandler
I do agree with this. Sports need to become gender neutral.


No, they don't. Females should be afforded the opportunity to play on male teams, if they can do so on their athletic merit...that is fine.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
October 26th, 2021 at 6:28:26 PM permalink
Gandler
Member since: Aug 15, 2019
Threads: 27
Posts: 4236
Quote: Mission146
They pay him massively. They bring in massive revenues. Football operates profitably.

Maybe you could find a school where you might be able to identify a legitimate problem, but Alabama isn't it. Alabama football brings in positive revenues and supplements all of the other sports...probably supplements more than that.

It's baffling to me that someone would look at a profitable enterprise and choose that as the place to start making cuts.


That is an interesting view, that you probably do not apply to other government jobs (if you are like most Americans).

If an IRS Revenue Director is extremely skilled and leads and trains a top team and is the top performer and brings massive value (probably far more revenue to the government than even the best State Football team) should he make seven figures? The reality is there is a double standard for sports because they are viewed as entertainment, its not just about revenue produced. The IRS director probably brings more value to the government directly and indirectly (by training others to follow his methods).

I know you are probably going to say the IRS should be abolished because the Federal government should be shrinked. Fine scale it down to your State tax agency with whatever their positions are called, the same principle probably applies (likely even more so since they are less manned). In both of these examples the employees would be paid on a set pay scale and make the same as somebody in the same position for the same amount of years who is a total shammer and brings close to nothing.

People only care about incentive pay for government employees that produce revenue when it is something they enjoy (Football). When it is something their either hate or don't care about, its a crazy idea.

Let's take a great example from this forum, the Wizard left the IRS to make more money in the private sector. (If he feels I am being out of line with these comments I would be happy to be corrected, but this is all stuff he has stated on here or WOV), my guess is he added immense value to the IRS just by knowing how intelligent and hard working he is, and he almost certainly was a massive revenue producer (even if not directly, by saving money with risk management in SS, which I think was his main role eventually if I recall). And, he is probably as close to a celebrity that, as we as a nation we can have, as a former IRS employee who is now famous for math skills and strategy (and a bunch of other stuff, but for these purposes). Granted, not as famous as Football people, but for the niche field of IRS actuaries, probably as close as it gets (and probably earned the Federal Government more than the top Football Coach, yes I know they are technically State employees). Would it be right for the IRS to offer him seven figures (whether he would accept it or not is totally irrelevant) since he was brining so much value and direct revenue to the IRS to keep him and/or get him back?

The point is we (I say we as Americans, not me specifically) only reward revenue in government when it accompanies entertainment. Even if there are fields that produce objectively more revenue (and with the right people can produce far more) and are strictly compensated based on GS level and years (and maybe some variations for location COLA etc...). Yet, coaches are regarded as the only ones that its even worth considering seven figure base salaries for plus multiple six figure bonuses if they meet some arbitrary objectives (defeat a certain teams in certain games).





Quote: Mission146
No, they don't. Females should be afforded the opportunity to play on male teams, if they can do so on their athletic merit...that is fine.



That is what gender neutral means, one team, same standards, you either meet them or fail regardless of gender, nobody is graded on the curve.

A similar example is not sports, but its as close to sports as I come in my adult life, is the Army, the Army transitioned to a gender and age neutral PT test. It used to be curved (heavily) based on age and gender, for example a 27 year old male would have to do at least 39 push ups to pass (and 77 to max score) in two minutes. A 27 year old female would have to do 17 (and 46 to max score) a 60 year old male must do 20 pushups to pass (and 55 to max). This same curving applies to runs, sit-ups, alternate events, etc...

Now, it is based purely on job assignment. A 60 female must meet the same minimum score as a 21 year old male if they are both Finance Specialists, (which would be much lower than the same two soldiers would have to meet if they were infantry). It makes sense, academic standards are not gender neutral (to be eligible for whatever job you need a certain score regardless of age and gender, you either score high enough in the required subjects or you do not), there is no reason physical standards should be.

In my High School there was one Football team, one year (my sophomore year when she was a freshman) a female wanted to join (and it was decided that she could as there were no gender restrictions as there was only one Football team). Everyone thought it was scandal, she joined, and after about a week everyone stopped caring because it changed nothing. She did not get a ton of field time during games -though some men did not either- (I had to go to every Football game, even away, because I was in marching band, so I saw them all except maybe four, -I think I usually had to skip Thanksgiving Day games most years because my family wanted to be away, but other than that my attendance was actually perfect for how much I hated it-), and maybe they had lower standards because of her gender some would say (I have no reason to suspect that, she was built very well, better than most men), I don't know I would hope not, but in any case the world did not end, and after a week or two of gossip people stopped caring, and as I remember she was on the team until I graduated (I would have to assume she stayed on her senior year, she was one year behind me).

I see no reason that a female should not be allowed to join any team if they can meet the requirements and pass the try-outs. As long as the standards are the same. Whether it is a job, the military, or a team, the concept is the same, you have a specific role in that organization regardless of age and gender and you need to be able to meet that standard.

I don't want to get too derailed with this rabbit hole (gender neutral standards), I know we do not agree, and have hashed it out before in other threads, but that is my view. And, I know neither of us are going to change our view in this thread. I am more interested in revenue views.
October 26th, 2021 at 7:08:09 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: Gandler
I do agree with this. Sports need to become gender neutral.


Ridiculous. Do you know why you never see a bantamweight boxer fighting a heavyweight boxer? The bantamweight boxer would be killed. No matter how good he was. The same thing with gender-neutral sports. Weight and size are everything. I took karate classes in the early seventies and they drilled it into our heads that Bruce Lee who was five foot eight would never beat a black belt karate expert who is 6ft 2 and weighed 200 lb. Just like in the movies when you see some 5 foot 4 115 pound woman destroying men twice her size with martial arts. It's a joke, they would kill her with one punch. And her punches would be almost unfelt by them.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
Page 2 of 4<1234>